Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility Skip to content

Today's Daf Yomi

August 6, 2022 | 讟壮 讘讗讘 转砖驻状讘

  • This month's shiurim are sponsored by Shoshana Shur for the refuah Shlema of Meira Bat Zelda Zahava.

Ketubot 31 – Shabbat August 6

This is the daf for Shabbat. For Friday’s daf, click here.

Today’s daf is sponsored by Deborah Aschheim in loving memory of her mother Edith Aschheim A”H. “She left us too young; but she left a lasting and loving legacy, including a love of Yiddishkeit. She was born in Vienna in 1926, went on the Kindertransport to London and was blessed to be reunited with her parents in USA in December 1940. She embraced all that NYC had to offer. Mommy, you are forever in my heart.”

讜拽专注 砖讬专讗讬谉 砖诇 讞讘讬专讜

and at the same time he tore another鈥檚 silk [shira鈥檌n]. The question is whether the liability to receive the death penalty exempts him from the liability for payment incurred at precisely the same moment.

讙讜驻讗 讗诪专 专讘 讞住讚讗 诪讜讚讛 专讘讬 谞讞讜谞讬讗 讘谉 讛拽谞讛 讘讙讜谞讘 讞诇讘讜 砖诇 讞讘讬专讜 讜讗讻诇讜 砖讛讜讗 讞讬讬讘 砖讻讘专 谞转讞讬讬讘 讘讙谞讘讛 拽讜讚诐 砖讬讘讗 诇讬讚讬 讗讬住讜专 讞诇讘 诇讬诪讗 驻诇讬讙讗 讚专讘讬 讗讘讬谉 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讘讬谉 讛讝讜专拽 讞抓 诪转讞讬诇转 讗专讘注 诇住讜祝 讗专讘注 讜拽专注 砖讬专讗讬谉 讘讛诇讬讻转讜 驻讟讜专 砖注拽讬专讛 爪讜专讱 讛谞讞讛 讛讬讗 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 讛讙讘讛讛 爪讜专讱 讗讻讬诇讛 讛讬讗

搂 The Gemara analyzes the matter itself. Rav 岣sda said: Rabbi Ne岣nya ben HaKana concedes in the case of one who steals another鈥檚 forbidden fat and eats it that he is obligated to pay for the fat, as he is already liable for theft before he comes to violate the prohibition against eating forbidden fat. The Gemara comments: Let us say that Rav 岣sda disagrees with Rabbi Avin, as Rabbi Avin said: One who shoots an arrow from the beginning of four cubits to the end of four cubits in the public domain on Shabbat, thereby performing a prohibited labor for which he is liable to receive a court-imposed death penalty, and the arrow ripped silk as it proceeds, is exempt from the obligation to pay for the silk because he is liable for the more severe punishment for desecrating Shabbat. Although the silk was ripped prior to completion of the prohibited labor, as the arrow had not yet come to rest, he is nevertheless exempt, as lifting is a prerequisite for placement. The prohibited labor of carrying on Shabbat is comprised of lifting of the object and placement. Once he shot the arrow, its movement through the air is a continuation of his act of Shabbat desecration, for which he is liable to be executed. Here, too, say that lifting the fat is a prerequisite for eating, and therefore he should be exempt from payment.

讛讻讬 讛砖转讗 讛转诐 讗讬 讗驻砖专 诇讛谞讞讛 讘诇讗 注拽讬专讛 讛讻讗 讗驻砖专 诇讗讻讬诇讛 讘诇讗 讛讙讘讛讛 讚讗讬 讘注讬 讙讞讬谉 讜讗讻讬诇 讗讬 谞诪讬 讛转诐 讗讬 讘注讬 诇讗讛讚讜专讛 诇讗 诪爪讬 诪讛讚专 诇讛 讛讻讗 诪爪讬 诪讛讚专 诇讛

The Gemara refutes this argument: How can these cases be compared? There, in the case of the arrow, placement is impossible without lifting, as placement without lifting is not a labor prohibited on Shabbat. Therefore, lifting and placement are a single unit. In contrast, here, eating is possible without lifting as, if one wishes, he could bend down and eat without lifting the food to his mouth. Alternatively, there is another difference between the cases: There, in the case of the arrow, even if he seeks to take back the arrow after shooting it, he cannot take it back; therefore, lifting and placement constitute one action. Here, he could replace the fat after lifting it.

诪讗讬 讗讬讻讗 讘讬谉 讛讗讬 诇讬砖谞讗 诇讛讗讬 诇讬砖谞讗 讗讬讻讗 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜 讛诪注讘讬专 住讻讬谉 讘专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 讜拽专注 砖讬专讗讬谉 讘讛诇讬讻转讜 诇讛讱 诇讬砖谞讗 讚讗诪专转 讗讬 讗驻砖专 诇讛谞讞讛 讘诇讗 注拽讬专讛 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 讗讬 讗驻砖专 诇讛谞讞讛 讘诇讗 注拽讬专讛 诇讛讱 诇讬砖谞讗 讚讗诪专转 诇讗 诪爪讬 诪讛讚专 诇讛 讛讻讗 诪爪讬 诪讛讚专 诇讛

The Gemara asks: What practical difference is there between this formulation, where the criterion is whether the second stage could be performed independent of the first stage, and that formulation, where the criterion is whether the second stage is inevitable after performing the first stage? The Gemara responds: There is a practical difference between them with regard to one who carries a knife in the public domain and tears silk as he proceeds. According to that formulation, where you said: Lifting is a prerequisite for placement, here too, lifting is a prerequisite for placement. As these two stages are inexorably connected, they constitute one action, and the one carrying the knife is exempt from paying the damages. Conversely, according to that formulation where you said: He cannot take back the arrow and that is why they are considered one action, here, he can take back the knife; therefore, lifting and placement are separate actions and he is not exempt from punishment for the damages that he caused.

讙讜驻讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讘讬谉 讛讝讜专拽 讞抓 诪转讞诇转 讗专讘注 诇住讜祝 讗专讘注 讜拽专注 砖讬专讗讬谉 讘讛诇讬讻转讜 驻讟讜专 砖注拽讬专讛 爪讜专讱 讛谞讞讛 讛讬讗 诪转讬讘 专讘 讘讬讘讬 讘专 讗讘讬讬 讛讙讜谞讘 讻讬住 讘砖讘转 讞讬讬讘 砖讻讘专 谞转讞讬讬讘 讘讙谞讬讘讛 拽讜讚诐 砖讬讘讗 诇讬讚讬 讗讬住讜专 住拽讬诇讛 讛讬讛 诪讙专专 讜讬讜爪讗 诪讙专专 讜讬讜爪讗 驻讟讜专 砖讛专讬 讗讬住讜专 砖讘转 讜讙谞讬讘讛 讘讗讬谉 讻讗讞讚

搂 The Gemara analyzes the matter itself. Rabbi Avin said: With regard to one who shoots an arrow from the beginning of four cubits to the end of four cubits and the arrow rips silk as it proceeds, he is exempt, as lifting is a prerequisite for placement. Rav Beivai bar Abaye raised an objection from that which is taught in a baraita: One who steals a purse on Shabbat is liable for the theft because he was already liable for theft as soon as he lifted the purse. This took place before he came to violate the prohibition against performing prohibited labor on Shabbat by carrying it into the public domain, a violation punishable by stoning. However, if he did not lift the purse but was dragging it on the ground and exiting the private domain, dragging and exiting, he is exempt, as the prohibition against theft and the prohibition of Shabbat are violated simultaneously when he drags the purse out of the owner鈥檚 property and into the public domain.

讜讗诪讗讬 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 诇讬诪讗 讛讙讘讛讛 爪讜专讱 讛讜爪讗讛 讛讬讗 讛讻讗 讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 讻讙讜谉 砖讛讙讘讬讛讜 注诇 诪谞转 诇讛爪谞讬注讜 讜谞诪诇讱 注诇讬讜 讜讛讜爪讬讗讜

Rav Beivai concludes: But why is he liable if he carried the purse? Here, too, let us say that lifting is a prerequisite for carrying out, and therefore the theft was performed in the course of performance of the prohibited labor and he is exempt. The Gemara answers: With what are we dealing here? We are dealing with a case where he lifted the pouch in order to conceal it in the same domain, not to carry it out into the public domain, and he reconsidered his plan with regard to the purse and carried it out. In that case the act of lifting was not performed for the purpose of carrying out. Therefore, he is not exempt from the obligation to pay for the theft.

讜讻讬 讛讗讬 讙讜讜谞讗 诪讬 讞讬讬讘 讜讛讗诪专 专讘 住讬诪讜谉 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诪讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讛诪驻谞讛 讞驻爪讬诐 诪讝讜讬转 诇讝讜讬转 讜谞诪诇讱 注诇讬讛诐 讜讛讜爪讬讗谉 驻讟讜专 砖诇讗 讛讬转讛 注拽讬专讛 诪砖注讛 专讗砖讜谞讛 诇讻讱

The Gemara asks: And in a case like that, where he reconsidered, is one liable for carrying out an object on Shabbat? But didn鈥檛 Rav Simon say that Rabbi Ami said that Rabbi Yo岣nan said: One who moves objects from one corner of his house to another corner on Shabbat, and he reconsidered his plan in their regard after lifting them and carried them out into the public domain, he is exempt, as the act of lifting was not initially performed for that purpose of carrying from one domain to another. Here, too, since the thief did not lift the pouch with the intention of carrying it out, he is not liable to be stoned.

诇讗 转讬诪讗 注诇 诪谞转 诇讛爪谞讬注讜 讗诇讗 讗讬诪讗 注诇 诪谞转 诇讛讜爪讬讗讜 讛讻讗 讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 讻砖注诪讚

The Gemara emends the previous answer: Do not say that he lifted it in order to conceal it; rather, say that he lifted it in order to carry it out. Nevertheless, the case of shooting the arrow and the case of stealing the purse are different, as with what case are we dealing here? It is a case where he stopped in the courtyard before taking the pouch out to the public domain. Therefore, the initial lifting is exclusively theft and not the start of a prohibited labor, as by stopping, he separated the lifting from the carrying out.

注诪讚 诇诪讗讬 讗讬 诇讻转祝 讗讜专讞讬讛 讛讜讗 讗诇讗 讘注讜诪讚 诇驻讜砖 讗讘诇 诇讻转祝 诪讗讬

The Gemara asks: This is a case where he stopped. For what purpose did he stop? If he stopped in order to adjust the burden on his shoulder, that is the typical manner of proceeding and would not be considered an interruption in the process of carrying out the object. Rather, it must be in a case of one who stopped to rest, and when he resumes moving he initiates a separate action. The Gemara infers: But if he stopped in order to adjust the burden on his shoulder, what is the halakha?

驻讟讜专 讗讚转谞讬 讛讬讛 诪讙专专 讜讬讜爪讗 诪讙专专 讜讬讜爪讗 驻讟讜专 谞驻诇讜讙 讜谞讬转谞讬 讘讚讬讚讛 讘诪讛 讚讘专讬诐 讗诪讜专讬诐 讘注讜诪讚 诇驻讜砖 讗讘诇 诇讻转祝 驻讟讜专

He would be exempt. If that is the case, rather than teaching: If he was dragging and exiting, dragging and exiting, he is exempt, let the tanna distinguish and teach the distinction within the case of carrying itself, as follows: In what case are these matters stated? It is in a case where he stopped to rest; however, if he stopped to adjust the burden on his shoulder, he is exempt.

讗诇讗 讛讗 诪谞讬 讘谉 注讝讗讬 讛讬讗 讚讗诪专 诪讛诇讱 讻注讜诪讚 讚诪讬 讗讘诇 讝讜专拽 诪讗讬 驻讟讜专 谞讬驻诇讜讙 [讜谞讬转谞讬] 讘讚讬讚讛 讘诪讛 讚讘专讬诐 讗诪讜专讬诐 讘诪讛诇讱 讗讘诇 讝讜专拽 驻讟讜专

Rather, the Gemara explains why one is liable in the case where he carries the purse. In accordance with whose opinion was this halakha taught? It is in accordance with the opinion of ben Azzai, who said: The legal status of one who walks is like that of one who stops, as each step constitutes a pause between the actions of lifting and placement. Therefore, the initial lifting is not part of the prohibited labor of carrying out. The Gemara infers: But if one throws the object into another domain, what is the halakha? He would be exempt from payment, as the lifting is the start of the prohibited labor of carrying out. If so, let the tanna distinguish and teach the distinction within the case itself, without resorting to the case of dragging and exiting, as follows: In what case are these matters stated? It is in the case of one who walks, so that there is separation between lifting and carrying out, and therefore the theft and the desecration of Shabbat are not simultaneous. However, one who throws is exempt from payment, as liability for carrying out and for theft are incurred simultaneously.

诪讙专专 讜讬讜爪讗 讗讬爪讟专讬讻讗 诇讬讛 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讗诪讬谞讗 讗讬谉 讚专讱 讛讜爪讗讛 讘讻讱 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

The Gemara answers: According to the opinion of ben Azzai, that would in fact be a more appropriate distinction; however, the case of one who was dragging and exiting was necessary for the tanna to teach because it includes a novel element, as it might enter your mind to say that this is not a typical manner of carrying out, and one is not liable to be executed for performing a prohibited labor in an atypical manner. Therefore, it teaches us that this too is a manner of carrying out.

讜讘诪讗讬 讗讬 讘专讘专讘讬 讗讜专讞讬讛 讛讜讗 讗讬 讘讝讜讟专讬 诇讗讜 讗讜专讞讬讛 讛讜讗 讗诇讗 讘诪讬爪注讬

And the Gemara asks: In what case is this so? If it is in the case of large purses, obviously dragging is its typical manner, and there is nothing novel in this. If it is in the case of small purses, dragging is certainly not its typical manner, and one would certainly not be liable. Rather, it must be referring to intermediate-sized purses. Although they are not always carried out in this manner, since they are sometimes dragged, the novelty is that he is liable for desecrating Shabbat and exempt from the payment.

讜讚讗驻拽讬讛 诇讛讬讻讗 讗讬 讚讗驻拽讬讛 诇专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 讗讬住讜专 砖讘转 讗讬讻讗 讗讬住讜专 讙谞讬讘讛 诇讬讻讗 讗讬 讚讗驻拽讬讛 诇专砖讜转 讛讬讞讬讚 讗讬住讜专 讙谞讬讘讛 讗讬讻讗 讗讬住讜专 砖讘转 诇讬讻讗 诇讗 爪专讬讻讗 讚讗驻拽讬讛 诇爪讬讚讬 专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐

The Gemara continues: And in this case, to where did he carry out the pouch? If he carried it out from the owner鈥檚 private domain to the public domain, there is violation of the prohibition of Shabbat; however, there is no violation of the prohibition against theft, as one does not acquire an item by pulling it into the public domain. If he carried it out from the owner鈥檚 private domain to his own private domain, there is violation of the prohibition against theft; however, there is no violation of the prohibition of Shabbat. The Gemara answers: This ruling is necessary only in a case where he carried it out to the sides of the public domain. This is referring to the area in the public domain adjacent to the houses located on its sides, demarcated from the thoroughfare by small pegs and not by a full-fledged partition.

讜讻诪讗谉 讗讬 讻专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讚讗诪专 爪讬讚讬 专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 讻专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 讚诪讜 讗讬住讜专 砖讘转 讗讬讻讗 讗讬住讜专 讙谞讬讘讛 诇讬讻讗 讗讬 讻专讘谞谉 讚讗诪专讬 爪讬讚讬 专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 诇讗讜 讻专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 讚诪讜 讗讬住讜专 讙谞讬讘讛 讗讬讻讗 讗讬住讜专 砖讘转 诇讬讻讗

The Gemara asks: And in accordance with whose opinion is this taught? If it is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer, who said: The legal status of the sides of the public domain is like that of the public domain, there is violation of the prohibition of Shabbat; however, there is no violation of the prohibition against theft. If it is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, who said: The legal status of the sides of the public domain is not like that of the public domain, there is violation of the prohibition against theft; however, there is no violation of the prohibition of Shabbat.

诇注讜诇诐 讻专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讜讻讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 爪讬讚讬 专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 讻专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 讚诪讜 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 诇注谞讬谉 讞讬讜讘讗 讚砖讘转 讚讝讬诪谞讬谉 讚讚讞拽讬 专讘讬诐 讜注讬讬诇讬 诇讛转诐 讗讘诇 诇注谞讬谉 诪讬拽谞讗 拽谞讬 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚讛讗 诇讗 砖讻讬讞讬 专讘讬诐

The Gemara answers: Actually, it is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer, and when Rabbi Eliezer said: The legal status of the sides of the public domain is like that of the public domain, that applies only with regard to the liability for performing prohibited labor on Shabbat, as occasionally the multitudes crowd and enter there. However, with regard to the matter of acquiring an object, one acquires it by dragging it there. What is the reason for this halakha? It is due to the fact that the public is not typically found there, and acquisition can be effected in a place where the multitudes are not typically found.

专讘 讗砖讬 讗诪专 讻讙讜谉 砖爪讬专祝 讬讚讜 诇诪讟讛 诪砖诇砖讛 讜拽讬讘诇讜 讻讚专讘讗 讚讗诪专 专讘讗 讬讚讜 砖诇 讗讚诐 讞砖讜讘讛 诇讜 讻讗专讘注讛 注诇 讗专讘注讛 专讘 讗讞讗 诪转谞讬 讛讻讬

Rav Ashi said: Actually, one is exempt when one dragged the object into the public domain in a case where he joined his hand to his other hand at a height below three handbreadths off the ground and received the purse by passing it from one hand into the other as soon as he brought it into the public domain. This is in accordance with the opinion of Rava, as Rava said: A person鈥檚 hand is considered like four by four handbreadths for him. Therefore, an object placed in one鈥檚 hand is considered placed with regard to Shabbat, and since his hand is his personal domain he has also acquired the stolen item. Rav A岣 taught the entire discussion this way, as above.

专讘讬谞讗 诪转谞讬 诇注讜诇诐 讚讗驻拽讬讛 诇专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 讜讘专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 谞诪讬 拽谞讛 讜转专讜讬讬讛讜 讘讚讬讜拽讗 讚讛讗 诪转谞讬转讬谉 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬 讚转谞谉 讛讬讛 诪讜砖讻讜 讜讬讜爪讗 讜诪转 讘专砖讜转 讘注诇讬诐 驻讟讜专 讛讙讘讬讛讜 讗讜 砖讛讜爪讬讗讜 诪专砖讜转 讘注诇讬诐 讜诪转 讞讬讬讘

Ravina taught otherwise: Actually, it is a case where one carried out the object to the public domain, and in the public domain he also acquires the stolen object by removing it from the owner鈥檚 domain, even if he does not transfer it to his own domain. The Gemara comments: And the two of them, Rav A岣 and Ravina disagree with regard to the inference of this mishna, as we learned in a mishna (Bava Kamma 79a) with regard to one who stole an animal: If he was pulling the animal and exiting, and it died in the domain of the owner, the thief is exempt from payment because he did not yet acquire the animal and therefore did not assume liability for its death through circumstances beyond his control. If he lifted it or took it out of the owner鈥檚 domain, thereby acquiring the animal, and it died, the thief is liable to pay its value because it died in his possession.

专讘讬谞讗 讚讬讬拽 诪专讬砖讗 专讘 讗讞讗 讚讬讬拽 诪住讬驻讗 专讘讬谞讗 讚讬讬拽 诪专讬砖讗 讛讬讛 诪讜砖讻讜 讜讬讜爪讗 讜诪转 讘专砖讜转 讘注诇讬诐 驻讟讜专 讟注诪讗 讚诪转 讘专砖讜转 讘注诇讬诐 讛讗 讛讜爪讬讗讜 诪专砖讜转 讘注诇讬诐 讜诪转 讞讬讬讘 专讘 讗讞讗 讚讬讬拽 诪住讬驻讗 讛讙讘讬讛讜 讗讜 砖讛讜爪讬讗讜 讛讜爪讗讛 讚讜诪讬讗 讚讛讙讘讛讛 诪讛 讛讙讘讛讛 讚讗转讬 诇专砖讜转讬讛 讗祝 讛讜爪讗讛 谞诪讬 讚讗转讬 诇专砖讜转讬讛

Ravina inferred his conclusion from the first clause of the mishna, and Rav A岣 inferred his conclusion from the latter clause. Ravina inferred his conclusion from the first clause: If he was pulling the animal and exiting, and it died in the domain of the owner, the thief is exempt from payment. The reason that the thief is exempt is that the animal died in the owner鈥檚 domain; by inference, if he took it out of the owner鈥檚 domain and it died, he is liable because the thief acquires the item by its very removal from the owner鈥檚 property, even to the public domain. Rav A岣 inferred his conclusion from the latter clause of the mishna: If he lifted it or took it out of the owner鈥檚 domain, he is liable. Based on the juxtaposition of the two, taking the animal out is similar to lifting it: Just as lifting is an act of acquisition through which the animal comes into his domain, so too, taking it out is referring to a case where it comes into his domain.

诇专讘 讗讞讗 拽砖讬讗 专讬砖讗 诇专讘讬谞讗 拽砖讬讗 住讬驻讗 专讬砖讗 诇专讘 讗讞讗 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讻诪讛 讚诇讗 讗转讬 诇专砖讜转讬讛 专砖讜转 讘注诇讬诐 拽专讬谞讗 讘讬讛 住讬驻讗 诇专讘讬谞讗 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讛讜爪讗讛 讚讜诪讬讗 讚讛讙讘讛讛 诇讗 讗诪专讬谞谉

The Gemara observes: For Rav A岣 the first clause of the mishna is difficult, while for Ravina the latter clause is difficult. The Gemara answers: The first clause is not difficult for Rav A岣, as he could explain it as follows: As long as the animal has not come into one鈥檚 domain, even if it has left the owner鈥檚 property, we continue to call it the owner鈥檚 domain. Similarly, the latter clause is not difficult for Ravina, as in his opinion we do not say: Taking the animal out is similar to lifting it. Therefore, the mishna鈥檚 ruling is that the thief acquires the animal merely through its removal from the owner鈥檚 property.

讛讘讗 注诇 讗讞讜转讜 讜注诇 讗讞讜转 讗讘讬讜 讻讜壮 讜专诪讬谞讛讜 讗诇讜 讛谉 讛诇讜拽讬谉 讛讘讗 注诇 讗讞讜转讜 讜注诇 讗讞讜转 讗讘讬讜 讜注诇 讗讞讜转 讗诪讜 讜注诇 讗讞讜转 讗砖转讜 讜注诇 讗砖转 讗讞讬讜 讜注诇 讗砖转 讗讞讬 讗讘讬讜 讜注诇 讛谞讚讛

搂 The mishna continues: Similarly, one who has forced relations with his sister, i.e., he rapes her, or with his father鈥檚 sister, or with his mother鈥檚 sister, or with his wife鈥檚 sister, or with his brother鈥檚 wife, or with his father鈥檚 brother鈥檚 wife after they divorced, or with a menstruating woman, there is a fine paid. And the Gemara raised a contradiction from the following mishna (Makkot 13a): And these people are flogged: One who has relations with his sister, or with his father鈥檚 sister, or with his mother鈥檚 sister, or with his wife鈥檚 sister, or with his brother鈥檚 wife, or with his father鈥檚 brother鈥檚 wife, or with a menstruating woman. Anyone who intentionally has relations with any of these women is punished with lashes.

  • This month's shiurim are sponsored by Shoshana Shur for the refuah Shlema of Meira Bat Zelda Zahava.

Want to explore more about the Daf?

See insights from our partners, contributors and community of women learners

talking talmud_square

Ketubot 31: Walking, Standing and Throwing

The Gemara discusses at in great detail all the different steps involved with the actions of walking, standing, and throwing...

Ketubot 31 – Shabbat August 6

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Ketubot 31 – Shabbat August 6

讜拽专注 砖讬专讗讬谉 砖诇 讞讘讬专讜

and at the same time he tore another鈥檚 silk [shira鈥檌n]. The question is whether the liability to receive the death penalty exempts him from the liability for payment incurred at precisely the same moment.

讙讜驻讗 讗诪专 专讘 讞住讚讗 诪讜讚讛 专讘讬 谞讞讜谞讬讗 讘谉 讛拽谞讛 讘讙讜谞讘 讞诇讘讜 砖诇 讞讘讬专讜 讜讗讻诇讜 砖讛讜讗 讞讬讬讘 砖讻讘专 谞转讞讬讬讘 讘讙谞讘讛 拽讜讚诐 砖讬讘讗 诇讬讚讬 讗讬住讜专 讞诇讘 诇讬诪讗 驻诇讬讙讗 讚专讘讬 讗讘讬谉 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讘讬谉 讛讝讜专拽 讞抓 诪转讞讬诇转 讗专讘注 诇住讜祝 讗专讘注 讜拽专注 砖讬专讗讬谉 讘讛诇讬讻转讜 驻讟讜专 砖注拽讬专讛 爪讜专讱 讛谞讞讛 讛讬讗 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 讛讙讘讛讛 爪讜专讱 讗讻讬诇讛 讛讬讗

搂 The Gemara analyzes the matter itself. Rav 岣sda said: Rabbi Ne岣nya ben HaKana concedes in the case of one who steals another鈥檚 forbidden fat and eats it that he is obligated to pay for the fat, as he is already liable for theft before he comes to violate the prohibition against eating forbidden fat. The Gemara comments: Let us say that Rav 岣sda disagrees with Rabbi Avin, as Rabbi Avin said: One who shoots an arrow from the beginning of four cubits to the end of four cubits in the public domain on Shabbat, thereby performing a prohibited labor for which he is liable to receive a court-imposed death penalty, and the arrow ripped silk as it proceeds, is exempt from the obligation to pay for the silk because he is liable for the more severe punishment for desecrating Shabbat. Although the silk was ripped prior to completion of the prohibited labor, as the arrow had not yet come to rest, he is nevertheless exempt, as lifting is a prerequisite for placement. The prohibited labor of carrying on Shabbat is comprised of lifting of the object and placement. Once he shot the arrow, its movement through the air is a continuation of his act of Shabbat desecration, for which he is liable to be executed. Here, too, say that lifting the fat is a prerequisite for eating, and therefore he should be exempt from payment.

讛讻讬 讛砖转讗 讛转诐 讗讬 讗驻砖专 诇讛谞讞讛 讘诇讗 注拽讬专讛 讛讻讗 讗驻砖专 诇讗讻讬诇讛 讘诇讗 讛讙讘讛讛 讚讗讬 讘注讬 讙讞讬谉 讜讗讻讬诇 讗讬 谞诪讬 讛转诐 讗讬 讘注讬 诇讗讛讚讜专讛 诇讗 诪爪讬 诪讛讚专 诇讛 讛讻讗 诪爪讬 诪讛讚专 诇讛

The Gemara refutes this argument: How can these cases be compared? There, in the case of the arrow, placement is impossible without lifting, as placement without lifting is not a labor prohibited on Shabbat. Therefore, lifting and placement are a single unit. In contrast, here, eating is possible without lifting as, if one wishes, he could bend down and eat without lifting the food to his mouth. Alternatively, there is another difference between the cases: There, in the case of the arrow, even if he seeks to take back the arrow after shooting it, he cannot take it back; therefore, lifting and placement constitute one action. Here, he could replace the fat after lifting it.

诪讗讬 讗讬讻讗 讘讬谉 讛讗讬 诇讬砖谞讗 诇讛讗讬 诇讬砖谞讗 讗讬讻讗 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜 讛诪注讘讬专 住讻讬谉 讘专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 讜拽专注 砖讬专讗讬谉 讘讛诇讬讻转讜 诇讛讱 诇讬砖谞讗 讚讗诪专转 讗讬 讗驻砖专 诇讛谞讞讛 讘诇讗 注拽讬专讛 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 讗讬 讗驻砖专 诇讛谞讞讛 讘诇讗 注拽讬专讛 诇讛讱 诇讬砖谞讗 讚讗诪专转 诇讗 诪爪讬 诪讛讚专 诇讛 讛讻讗 诪爪讬 诪讛讚专 诇讛

The Gemara asks: What practical difference is there between this formulation, where the criterion is whether the second stage could be performed independent of the first stage, and that formulation, where the criterion is whether the second stage is inevitable after performing the first stage? The Gemara responds: There is a practical difference between them with regard to one who carries a knife in the public domain and tears silk as he proceeds. According to that formulation, where you said: Lifting is a prerequisite for placement, here too, lifting is a prerequisite for placement. As these two stages are inexorably connected, they constitute one action, and the one carrying the knife is exempt from paying the damages. Conversely, according to that formulation where you said: He cannot take back the arrow and that is why they are considered one action, here, he can take back the knife; therefore, lifting and placement are separate actions and he is not exempt from punishment for the damages that he caused.

讙讜驻讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讘讬谉 讛讝讜专拽 讞抓 诪转讞诇转 讗专讘注 诇住讜祝 讗专讘注 讜拽专注 砖讬专讗讬谉 讘讛诇讬讻转讜 驻讟讜专 砖注拽讬专讛 爪讜专讱 讛谞讞讛 讛讬讗 诪转讬讘 专讘 讘讬讘讬 讘专 讗讘讬讬 讛讙讜谞讘 讻讬住 讘砖讘转 讞讬讬讘 砖讻讘专 谞转讞讬讬讘 讘讙谞讬讘讛 拽讜讚诐 砖讬讘讗 诇讬讚讬 讗讬住讜专 住拽讬诇讛 讛讬讛 诪讙专专 讜讬讜爪讗 诪讙专专 讜讬讜爪讗 驻讟讜专 砖讛专讬 讗讬住讜专 砖讘转 讜讙谞讬讘讛 讘讗讬谉 讻讗讞讚

搂 The Gemara analyzes the matter itself. Rabbi Avin said: With regard to one who shoots an arrow from the beginning of four cubits to the end of four cubits and the arrow rips silk as it proceeds, he is exempt, as lifting is a prerequisite for placement. Rav Beivai bar Abaye raised an objection from that which is taught in a baraita: One who steals a purse on Shabbat is liable for the theft because he was already liable for theft as soon as he lifted the purse. This took place before he came to violate the prohibition against performing prohibited labor on Shabbat by carrying it into the public domain, a violation punishable by stoning. However, if he did not lift the purse but was dragging it on the ground and exiting the private domain, dragging and exiting, he is exempt, as the prohibition against theft and the prohibition of Shabbat are violated simultaneously when he drags the purse out of the owner鈥檚 property and into the public domain.

讜讗诪讗讬 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 诇讬诪讗 讛讙讘讛讛 爪讜专讱 讛讜爪讗讛 讛讬讗 讛讻讗 讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 讻讙讜谉 砖讛讙讘讬讛讜 注诇 诪谞转 诇讛爪谞讬注讜 讜谞诪诇讱 注诇讬讜 讜讛讜爪讬讗讜

Rav Beivai concludes: But why is he liable if he carried the purse? Here, too, let us say that lifting is a prerequisite for carrying out, and therefore the theft was performed in the course of performance of the prohibited labor and he is exempt. The Gemara answers: With what are we dealing here? We are dealing with a case where he lifted the pouch in order to conceal it in the same domain, not to carry it out into the public domain, and he reconsidered his plan with regard to the purse and carried it out. In that case the act of lifting was not performed for the purpose of carrying out. Therefore, he is not exempt from the obligation to pay for the theft.

讜讻讬 讛讗讬 讙讜讜谞讗 诪讬 讞讬讬讘 讜讛讗诪专 专讘 住讬诪讜谉 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诪讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讛诪驻谞讛 讞驻爪讬诐 诪讝讜讬转 诇讝讜讬转 讜谞诪诇讱 注诇讬讛诐 讜讛讜爪讬讗谉 驻讟讜专 砖诇讗 讛讬转讛 注拽讬专讛 诪砖注讛 专讗砖讜谞讛 诇讻讱

The Gemara asks: And in a case like that, where he reconsidered, is one liable for carrying out an object on Shabbat? But didn鈥檛 Rav Simon say that Rabbi Ami said that Rabbi Yo岣nan said: One who moves objects from one corner of his house to another corner on Shabbat, and he reconsidered his plan in their regard after lifting them and carried them out into the public domain, he is exempt, as the act of lifting was not initially performed for that purpose of carrying from one domain to another. Here, too, since the thief did not lift the pouch with the intention of carrying it out, he is not liable to be stoned.

诇讗 转讬诪讗 注诇 诪谞转 诇讛爪谞讬注讜 讗诇讗 讗讬诪讗 注诇 诪谞转 诇讛讜爪讬讗讜 讛讻讗 讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 讻砖注诪讚

The Gemara emends the previous answer: Do not say that he lifted it in order to conceal it; rather, say that he lifted it in order to carry it out. Nevertheless, the case of shooting the arrow and the case of stealing the purse are different, as with what case are we dealing here? It is a case where he stopped in the courtyard before taking the pouch out to the public domain. Therefore, the initial lifting is exclusively theft and not the start of a prohibited labor, as by stopping, he separated the lifting from the carrying out.

注诪讚 诇诪讗讬 讗讬 诇讻转祝 讗讜专讞讬讛 讛讜讗 讗诇讗 讘注讜诪讚 诇驻讜砖 讗讘诇 诇讻转祝 诪讗讬

The Gemara asks: This is a case where he stopped. For what purpose did he stop? If he stopped in order to adjust the burden on his shoulder, that is the typical manner of proceeding and would not be considered an interruption in the process of carrying out the object. Rather, it must be in a case of one who stopped to rest, and when he resumes moving he initiates a separate action. The Gemara infers: But if he stopped in order to adjust the burden on his shoulder, what is the halakha?

驻讟讜专 讗讚转谞讬 讛讬讛 诪讙专专 讜讬讜爪讗 诪讙专专 讜讬讜爪讗 驻讟讜专 谞驻诇讜讙 讜谞讬转谞讬 讘讚讬讚讛 讘诪讛 讚讘专讬诐 讗诪讜专讬诐 讘注讜诪讚 诇驻讜砖 讗讘诇 诇讻转祝 驻讟讜专

He would be exempt. If that is the case, rather than teaching: If he was dragging and exiting, dragging and exiting, he is exempt, let the tanna distinguish and teach the distinction within the case of carrying itself, as follows: In what case are these matters stated? It is in a case where he stopped to rest; however, if he stopped to adjust the burden on his shoulder, he is exempt.

讗诇讗 讛讗 诪谞讬 讘谉 注讝讗讬 讛讬讗 讚讗诪专 诪讛诇讱 讻注讜诪讚 讚诪讬 讗讘诇 讝讜专拽 诪讗讬 驻讟讜专 谞讬驻诇讜讙 [讜谞讬转谞讬] 讘讚讬讚讛 讘诪讛 讚讘专讬诐 讗诪讜专讬诐 讘诪讛诇讱 讗讘诇 讝讜专拽 驻讟讜专

Rather, the Gemara explains why one is liable in the case where he carries the purse. In accordance with whose opinion was this halakha taught? It is in accordance with the opinion of ben Azzai, who said: The legal status of one who walks is like that of one who stops, as each step constitutes a pause between the actions of lifting and placement. Therefore, the initial lifting is not part of the prohibited labor of carrying out. The Gemara infers: But if one throws the object into another domain, what is the halakha? He would be exempt from payment, as the lifting is the start of the prohibited labor of carrying out. If so, let the tanna distinguish and teach the distinction within the case itself, without resorting to the case of dragging and exiting, as follows: In what case are these matters stated? It is in the case of one who walks, so that there is separation between lifting and carrying out, and therefore the theft and the desecration of Shabbat are not simultaneous. However, one who throws is exempt from payment, as liability for carrying out and for theft are incurred simultaneously.

诪讙专专 讜讬讜爪讗 讗讬爪讟专讬讻讗 诇讬讛 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讗诪讬谞讗 讗讬谉 讚专讱 讛讜爪讗讛 讘讻讱 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

The Gemara answers: According to the opinion of ben Azzai, that would in fact be a more appropriate distinction; however, the case of one who was dragging and exiting was necessary for the tanna to teach because it includes a novel element, as it might enter your mind to say that this is not a typical manner of carrying out, and one is not liable to be executed for performing a prohibited labor in an atypical manner. Therefore, it teaches us that this too is a manner of carrying out.

讜讘诪讗讬 讗讬 讘专讘专讘讬 讗讜专讞讬讛 讛讜讗 讗讬 讘讝讜讟专讬 诇讗讜 讗讜专讞讬讛 讛讜讗 讗诇讗 讘诪讬爪注讬

And the Gemara asks: In what case is this so? If it is in the case of large purses, obviously dragging is its typical manner, and there is nothing novel in this. If it is in the case of small purses, dragging is certainly not its typical manner, and one would certainly not be liable. Rather, it must be referring to intermediate-sized purses. Although they are not always carried out in this manner, since they are sometimes dragged, the novelty is that he is liable for desecrating Shabbat and exempt from the payment.

讜讚讗驻拽讬讛 诇讛讬讻讗 讗讬 讚讗驻拽讬讛 诇专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 讗讬住讜专 砖讘转 讗讬讻讗 讗讬住讜专 讙谞讬讘讛 诇讬讻讗 讗讬 讚讗驻拽讬讛 诇专砖讜转 讛讬讞讬讚 讗讬住讜专 讙谞讬讘讛 讗讬讻讗 讗讬住讜专 砖讘转 诇讬讻讗 诇讗 爪专讬讻讗 讚讗驻拽讬讛 诇爪讬讚讬 专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐

The Gemara continues: And in this case, to where did he carry out the pouch? If he carried it out from the owner鈥檚 private domain to the public domain, there is violation of the prohibition of Shabbat; however, there is no violation of the prohibition against theft, as one does not acquire an item by pulling it into the public domain. If he carried it out from the owner鈥檚 private domain to his own private domain, there is violation of the prohibition against theft; however, there is no violation of the prohibition of Shabbat. The Gemara answers: This ruling is necessary only in a case where he carried it out to the sides of the public domain. This is referring to the area in the public domain adjacent to the houses located on its sides, demarcated from the thoroughfare by small pegs and not by a full-fledged partition.

讜讻诪讗谉 讗讬 讻专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讚讗诪专 爪讬讚讬 专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 讻专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 讚诪讜 讗讬住讜专 砖讘转 讗讬讻讗 讗讬住讜专 讙谞讬讘讛 诇讬讻讗 讗讬 讻专讘谞谉 讚讗诪专讬 爪讬讚讬 专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 诇讗讜 讻专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 讚诪讜 讗讬住讜专 讙谞讬讘讛 讗讬讻讗 讗讬住讜专 砖讘转 诇讬讻讗

The Gemara asks: And in accordance with whose opinion is this taught? If it is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer, who said: The legal status of the sides of the public domain is like that of the public domain, there is violation of the prohibition of Shabbat; however, there is no violation of the prohibition against theft. If it is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, who said: The legal status of the sides of the public domain is not like that of the public domain, there is violation of the prohibition against theft; however, there is no violation of the prohibition of Shabbat.

诇注讜诇诐 讻专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讜讻讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 爪讬讚讬 专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 讻专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 讚诪讜 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 诇注谞讬谉 讞讬讜讘讗 讚砖讘转 讚讝讬诪谞讬谉 讚讚讞拽讬 专讘讬诐 讜注讬讬诇讬 诇讛转诐 讗讘诇 诇注谞讬谉 诪讬拽谞讗 拽谞讬 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚讛讗 诇讗 砖讻讬讞讬 专讘讬诐

The Gemara answers: Actually, it is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer, and when Rabbi Eliezer said: The legal status of the sides of the public domain is like that of the public domain, that applies only with regard to the liability for performing prohibited labor on Shabbat, as occasionally the multitudes crowd and enter there. However, with regard to the matter of acquiring an object, one acquires it by dragging it there. What is the reason for this halakha? It is due to the fact that the public is not typically found there, and acquisition can be effected in a place where the multitudes are not typically found.

专讘 讗砖讬 讗诪专 讻讙讜谉 砖爪讬专祝 讬讚讜 诇诪讟讛 诪砖诇砖讛 讜拽讬讘诇讜 讻讚专讘讗 讚讗诪专 专讘讗 讬讚讜 砖诇 讗讚诐 讞砖讜讘讛 诇讜 讻讗专讘注讛 注诇 讗专讘注讛 专讘 讗讞讗 诪转谞讬 讛讻讬

Rav Ashi said: Actually, one is exempt when one dragged the object into the public domain in a case where he joined his hand to his other hand at a height below three handbreadths off the ground and received the purse by passing it from one hand into the other as soon as he brought it into the public domain. This is in accordance with the opinion of Rava, as Rava said: A person鈥檚 hand is considered like four by four handbreadths for him. Therefore, an object placed in one鈥檚 hand is considered placed with regard to Shabbat, and since his hand is his personal domain he has also acquired the stolen item. Rav A岣 taught the entire discussion this way, as above.

专讘讬谞讗 诪转谞讬 诇注讜诇诐 讚讗驻拽讬讛 诇专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 讜讘专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 谞诪讬 拽谞讛 讜转专讜讬讬讛讜 讘讚讬讜拽讗 讚讛讗 诪转谞讬转讬谉 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬 讚转谞谉 讛讬讛 诪讜砖讻讜 讜讬讜爪讗 讜诪转 讘专砖讜转 讘注诇讬诐 驻讟讜专 讛讙讘讬讛讜 讗讜 砖讛讜爪讬讗讜 诪专砖讜转 讘注诇讬诐 讜诪转 讞讬讬讘

Ravina taught otherwise: Actually, it is a case where one carried out the object to the public domain, and in the public domain he also acquires the stolen object by removing it from the owner鈥檚 domain, even if he does not transfer it to his own domain. The Gemara comments: And the two of them, Rav A岣 and Ravina disagree with regard to the inference of this mishna, as we learned in a mishna (Bava Kamma 79a) with regard to one who stole an animal: If he was pulling the animal and exiting, and it died in the domain of the owner, the thief is exempt from payment because he did not yet acquire the animal and therefore did not assume liability for its death through circumstances beyond his control. If he lifted it or took it out of the owner鈥檚 domain, thereby acquiring the animal, and it died, the thief is liable to pay its value because it died in his possession.

专讘讬谞讗 讚讬讬拽 诪专讬砖讗 专讘 讗讞讗 讚讬讬拽 诪住讬驻讗 专讘讬谞讗 讚讬讬拽 诪专讬砖讗 讛讬讛 诪讜砖讻讜 讜讬讜爪讗 讜诪转 讘专砖讜转 讘注诇讬诐 驻讟讜专 讟注诪讗 讚诪转 讘专砖讜转 讘注诇讬诐 讛讗 讛讜爪讬讗讜 诪专砖讜转 讘注诇讬诐 讜诪转 讞讬讬讘 专讘 讗讞讗 讚讬讬拽 诪住讬驻讗 讛讙讘讬讛讜 讗讜 砖讛讜爪讬讗讜 讛讜爪讗讛 讚讜诪讬讗 讚讛讙讘讛讛 诪讛 讛讙讘讛讛 讚讗转讬 诇专砖讜转讬讛 讗祝 讛讜爪讗讛 谞诪讬 讚讗转讬 诇专砖讜转讬讛

Ravina inferred his conclusion from the first clause of the mishna, and Rav A岣 inferred his conclusion from the latter clause. Ravina inferred his conclusion from the first clause: If he was pulling the animal and exiting, and it died in the domain of the owner, the thief is exempt from payment. The reason that the thief is exempt is that the animal died in the owner鈥檚 domain; by inference, if he took it out of the owner鈥檚 domain and it died, he is liable because the thief acquires the item by its very removal from the owner鈥檚 property, even to the public domain. Rav A岣 inferred his conclusion from the latter clause of the mishna: If he lifted it or took it out of the owner鈥檚 domain, he is liable. Based on the juxtaposition of the two, taking the animal out is similar to lifting it: Just as lifting is an act of acquisition through which the animal comes into his domain, so too, taking it out is referring to a case where it comes into his domain.

诇专讘 讗讞讗 拽砖讬讗 专讬砖讗 诇专讘讬谞讗 拽砖讬讗 住讬驻讗 专讬砖讗 诇专讘 讗讞讗 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讻诪讛 讚诇讗 讗转讬 诇专砖讜转讬讛 专砖讜转 讘注诇讬诐 拽专讬谞讗 讘讬讛 住讬驻讗 诇专讘讬谞讗 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讛讜爪讗讛 讚讜诪讬讗 讚讛讙讘讛讛 诇讗 讗诪专讬谞谉

The Gemara observes: For Rav A岣 the first clause of the mishna is difficult, while for Ravina the latter clause is difficult. The Gemara answers: The first clause is not difficult for Rav A岣, as he could explain it as follows: As long as the animal has not come into one鈥檚 domain, even if it has left the owner鈥檚 property, we continue to call it the owner鈥檚 domain. Similarly, the latter clause is not difficult for Ravina, as in his opinion we do not say: Taking the animal out is similar to lifting it. Therefore, the mishna鈥檚 ruling is that the thief acquires the animal merely through its removal from the owner鈥檚 property.

讛讘讗 注诇 讗讞讜转讜 讜注诇 讗讞讜转 讗讘讬讜 讻讜壮 讜专诪讬谞讛讜 讗诇讜 讛谉 讛诇讜拽讬谉 讛讘讗 注诇 讗讞讜转讜 讜注诇 讗讞讜转 讗讘讬讜 讜注诇 讗讞讜转 讗诪讜 讜注诇 讗讞讜转 讗砖转讜 讜注诇 讗砖转 讗讞讬讜 讜注诇 讗砖转 讗讞讬 讗讘讬讜 讜注诇 讛谞讚讛

搂 The mishna continues: Similarly, one who has forced relations with his sister, i.e., he rapes her, or with his father鈥檚 sister, or with his mother鈥檚 sister, or with his wife鈥檚 sister, or with his brother鈥檚 wife, or with his father鈥檚 brother鈥檚 wife after they divorced, or with a menstruating woman, there is a fine paid. And the Gemara raised a contradiction from the following mishna (Makkot 13a): And these people are flogged: One who has relations with his sister, or with his father鈥檚 sister, or with his mother鈥檚 sister, or with his wife鈥檚 sister, or with his brother鈥檚 wife, or with his father鈥檚 brother鈥檚 wife, or with a menstruating woman. Anyone who intentionally has relations with any of these women is punished with lashes.

Scroll To Top